"Babs" needs to shut up~!

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 9, 2002

Any war that can be avoided is a benefit to everyone

Yeah, we should have let Hitler continue to conquer Europe...kinda like Saddam wants to do in the Middle East. That would benefit everyone. I cant believe I missed such a "simple" observation.

Lacmeh · Oct 9, 2002

Souljah, you are aware of the fact, that the USa did not oppose Hitler a long time, even after the the war in Europe has erupted?
I sincerely doubt, that the motive is to prevent Hussein from taking over the middle East. More likely a personal revenge.
Crazed or not, one thing Hussein is not and that´s religious. Therefore trying to link religious fanatics to him is a far stretch. Even the alleged Urane smuggle affair was a hoax, but nobody bothered to mention it. as a chemist I had a good laugh as to how the reports were made.
If america wants war, it surely will get it. But then it is the war in interest of America nothing more nothing less. And nobody in AMerica has the courage to admit it.

Gunny · Oct 9, 2002

I say cut off the money that supplys the funding of terrorism.

United States should comandeer all arab oil. Cut off the head and the body dies.

I like it!!!!!

Gunny out.

lithium. · Oct 9, 2002

Originally posted by gunnysgt
I say cut off the money that supplys the funding terrorism.

United States should comandeer all arab oil supplys. Cut off the head and the body dies.

I like it!!!!!

Gunny out.

Yep i completely agree the USA should do that.

Lacmeh · Oct 9, 2002

And therefore ensuring the next world war, because there is no way, that any nation will tolerate to be dependant on a single nation.
Hm, such principles like Soverinity, indipendence and laws are not really deeply ingrained into some of you. Or human rights.
You all keep on babbling, that you are so moral and valuing human rights and so on. What I see here is more like we want it all, we want it now and teh rest of the world can go to hell, we don´t care.

Morat · Oct 9, 2002

Yeah, we should have let Hitler continue to conquer Europe...kinda like Saddam wants to do in the Middle East. That would benefit everyone. I cant believe I missed such a "simple" observation.

  You know, that wouldn't have been all that good of a response to Starscream in the first place. After Starscream clarified his response, after Seeb's much better post on a similiar point, your response became not only pointless, but rather deceptive.

   Since Starscream already answered your point, why did you make it? Wouldn't honesty have compelled you to address his more thorough explanation of it?

    On a more on-topic note, it appears that the CIA is becomming uncomfortable with the White House's stance. Apparantly, there is heavy pressure from the White House for the CIA to justify claims the White House has already made, and Tenet testified yesterday that Saddam isn't likely at all to invade anyone, use WMD's, or give them to terrorists.

 

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 9, 2002

Honesty? I havent read that point from SC or seebs actually.

Morat · Oct 9, 2002

  Then what's the point of posting, if you're not even going to read the posts written by the person you were responding to?

   Why not go talk to a brick wall?

 

Gunny · Oct 9, 2002

Originally posted by Morat

Why not go talk to a brick wall?

Well good golly miss molly. I thought that was what cyber apologetics was in reality.

Gunny out.

Morat · Oct 9, 2002

  If Souljah doesn't have any interesting in reading responses, why does he post?

  Granted, the response wasn't to him, but Seebs addressed the exact same point. Why stop reading when there's only two more short posts in a thread?

Starscream · Oct 9, 2002

If Souljah doesn't have any interesting in reading responses, why does he post?

It is far easier for people to take pot shots at others.  Like many democrats, republicans, the Vatican, and other human beings I simply wish the White House to back up it's claims of the danger of Iraq before we go hog-wild with war.  I don't want to see our soldiers needlessly killed.  I don't want to see innocent lives in Iraq lost.  Somehow that either makes me a traitor or a coward.

This post has shown me a dishonest side to s0uljah that I thought was long gone from him on these forums.  I'm very disappointed that he fails to think of the dilema objectively and fully before he goes off charging others with treason (and calling me a coward).

Of course I don't think we should of gave in to Hitler.  Of course I don't think we should of let the Taliban flush this world into the toilet.  But I get a little sick of people who claim the Dems are cowardly using this contraversy to their own advantage when this war will conviently keep Bush in office (oh but that's only a side-effect for the President who so obviously devasted the other side in the election).

Bush tells us that we have to take action on Iraq because they won't let the UN inspect their arsenal.  Then Bush tells us that Iraq can't be trusted when they do allow the UN inspectors in and we need to take action against them anyway.  I suppose I'm expected to just sit there with a lobotomy of something like some brain-dead Bush-bot saying "Yes, bomb Iraq ... weapons of mass destruction ... bomb Iraq ... can't be trusted ... bomb Iraq ... ties to Al Queda ... bomb Iraq ... we don't need evidence, we're Americans".

And somehow, the very people who must permit Bush to go to war are called traitors for going on a fact-finding mission to Iraq.  Whatever.

 

Morat · Oct 10, 2002

  I wonder how much will hit the fan if we find, after a few days of casuality heavy street-to-street fighting in Baghdad, that Iraq really didn't have much in the way of a WMD program.

  Do you think the public will accept the costs, both monetary and physical, for "We had to be sure"?

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 10, 2002

If Souljah doesn't have any interesting in reading responses, why does he post?

90% of the time I read all of a thread, but when it gets old, I tend to skip.

Morat · Oct 10, 2002

  It was the last two posts in the thread, Souljah. One of them was short, consisting of seebs quoting the same line you did, and making a response. The next was longer, with Starscream responding to it.

   It would have taken approximately 10 seconds to scan them, and saved you the effort of posting what, at the very least, looked like a deliberate strawman.

 

Chris†opher Paul · Oct 11, 2002

Well, it looks like the House and the Senate have both approven Bush's use of force if needed.

Hang on tight folks.

I particulary want to point out this comment by a democrat:

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Yeah, kinda like I said about those two morons that went over to kiss Saddam's butt, huh?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/index.html

Stormy · Oct 11, 2002

IMO

If we live through the war on Iraq it is not going to make our President feel safe. He has a hit list with more and more countries to wage war against. He wants to protect us and the world from terrorism. But he has become the worst of all terrorist. He is putting our country in grave danger.

Starscream · Oct 12, 2002

Originally posted by Stormy
IMO

If we live through the war on Iraq it is not going to make our President feel safe. He has a hit list with more and more countries to wage war against. He wants to protect us and the world from terrorism. But he has become the worst of all terrorist. He is putting our country in grave danger.

I agree.  A year ago we had the sympathy and support of the world over - probably for the first time in history.

What an incredible waste of potential...

BTW, s0uljah, do you have any evidence at all that the congressman who visited Iraq we taking sides with Hussein?  Any at all?  Do you know how these congressmen voted recently?

 

Stormy · Oct 12, 2002

There was an Internet site for the war on terrorism. It was an official posting to keep us informed. I can no longer find it. Does anyone know anything about this?

I remember that North Korea, Cuba, Libya, and Syria are also on the list.

But there were many more countries of lesser concern that were also listed.

The world is no longer with us.

Soon they could be against us.

seebs · Oct 12, 2002

I have to say, it's never so important for us to speak with one voice that any of us should lie. People can and do legitimately disagree on which threats require or merit the use of force.

I am glad that a couple of our representatives were willing to go investigate, even a little. Even if they ended up getting snowed by Hussein's lies, they were *trying* to find the truth, which is a step forwards from blindly accepting what they're told.

smurfy2day · Oct 13, 2002

IMO, if Hussein really had weapons of mass destruction, as they are claiming, he would have used them a LONG time ago.

Secondly, the minute the first bomb is dropped over there, we are no longer safe here. This is just asking for trouble. If we think the Islamic nations hate us now, just wait until we go over there causing more trouble. I think before we even attempt to get rid of Hussein, we need to still be worrying about Osama Bin Laden, who really WOULD use a nuclear bomb, not just bluff about it.....JMO....

"Babs" needs to shut up~!

Based on a True Story

Well-Known Member

Remnant

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

Untitled One

Remnant

Untitled One

Well-Known Member

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

God Made Me A Skeptic

Bring it On

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency